Yet another USC vs UCLA Forum

[throwaway789]

Narrowed down my choices to these two schools. With the scholarship offers the COA will be about the same, with UCLA slightly more expensive (about $15-20k over 3 years). I've visited both schools as I'm from the Southern California area, and I don't see myself moving anywhere else in the near future. My parents are helping me cover tuition, so luckily no loans for me. After visiting I thought I felt more "at home" at USC, but after looking at their big law + fed clerk rates (UCLA = 45%, USC = 38%) I'm wondering if it would be more worth it to go to UCLA. I understand that they are very close peer schools, but 7% difference is a lot right? Maybe it's just a one year anamoly but seeing the numbers is definitely giving me pause. Do you guys think UCLA is worth the extra money?? Personally my goals are to hopefully to clerk and big law. Advice is much appreciated (:

[cavalier1138]

I mean, if your goals are biglaw or clerking, then a T14 school would serve you much better than either of these options.

But I'm slightly confused about your COA. Are you saying that after your parents' contribution your COA at UCLA is $15-20k? What are your actual scholarship offers, and what's your GPA/LSAT?

[throwaway789]

I mean, if your goals are biglaw or clerking, then a T14 school would serve you much better than either of these options.

But I'm slightly confused about your COA. Are you saying that after your parents' contribution your COA at UCLA is $15-20k? What are your actual scholarship offers, and what's your GPA/LSAT?

sorry that wasn't clear. i mean that everything included, tuition, room and board, parnets. ucla is slightly more expensive by 15-20k. (parents would cover the difference) but it's not like i want to have them pay an extra 15k unless i truly thought it was better for me. stats were 166 3.71. i guess when i say my goals are to clerk and then biglaw, i'm kind of talking out of my ass because i don't really know. i could just as well be coool being an ada or something all i know is that i want to remain in socal, that's why these are my main two choices.

[floatie]

sorry that wasn't clear. i mean that everything included, tuition, room and board, parnets. ucla is slightly more expensive by 15-20k. (parents would cover the difference) but it's not like i want to have them pay an extra 15k unless i truly thought it was better for me. stats were 166 3.71. i guess when i say my goals are to clerk and then biglaw, i'm kind of talking out of my ass because i don't really know. i could just as well be coool being an ada or something all i know is that i want to remain in socal, that's why these are my main two choices.

1) I wouldn't go to law school unless you have *some* idea of what you'd like to do afterwards. I'm not saying you have to have it all mapped out, but a lot of people go to law school thinking it's like undergrad and that they'll have all 3 years to figure it out, when that's not quite the case. BL hires right before 2L year, fed clerkship hiring is anywhere from your 1L to your 2L summer, etc. If you haven't already, I would highly recommend taking some time off and start to think about what you want to be doing.

2) I would retake - a couple more points would make you a safe bet for t14, which would give you more opportunities and flexibility

3) If you don't want to do either of the above, then I guess go to UCLA

[throwaway789]

sorry that wasn't clear. i mean that everything included, tuition, room and board, parnets. ucla is slightly more expensive by 15-20k. (parents would cover the difference) but it's not like i want to have them pay an extra 15k unless i truly thought it was better for me. stats were 166 3.71. i guess when i say my goals are to clerk and then biglaw, i'm kind of talking out of my ass because i don't really know. i could just as well be coool being an ada or something all i know is that i want to remain in socal, that's why these are my main two choices.

1) I wouldn't go to law school unless you have *some* idea of what you'd like to do afterwards. I'm not saying you have to have it all mapped out, but a lot of people go to law school thinking it's like undergrad and that they'll have all 3 years to figure it out, when that's not quite the case. BL hires right before 2L year, fed clerkship hiring is anywhere from your 1L to your 2L summer, etc. If you haven't already, I would highly recommend taking some time off and start to think about what you want to be doing.

2) I would retake - a couple more points would make you a safe bet for t14, which would give you more opportunities and flexibility

3) If you don't want to do either of the above, then I guess go to UCLA

thanks for your reply. yeah i understand your point that i really should have a clearer path set out for me. i guess my plans are that i'm trying to get the best grades i can (although i understand the forced curve means i should assume median), but assumung my grades are good enough for OCI, i'll and do my 2L summer at a firm, and hopefully get an offer at that firm. but i feel like i'm also flexible enough that if those plans don't work out, and i think i'd be cool with being an ADA as well. although again i'm not really sure until i really go in and experience everything right?

i'm seriously considering taking the lsat again, although my score was right around where i was practicing at. another thing is that i would be commuting to either school... which is why these the two schools are the most attractive for me right now, and mitigates a lot of the costs. so, that leads me to your last point.

do you think the difference is enough to justify the cost difference?

[floatie]

sorry that wasn't clear. i mean that everything included, tuition, room and board, parnets. ucla is slightly more expensive by 15-20k. (parents would cover the difference) but it's not like i want to have them pay an extra 15k unless i truly thought it was better for me. stats were 166 3.71. i guess when i say my goals are to clerk and then biglaw, i'm kind of talking out of my ass because i don't really know. i could just as well be coool being an ada or something all i know is that i want to remain in socal, that's why these are my main two choices.

1) I wouldn't go to law school unless you have *some* idea of what you'd like to do afterwards. I'm not saying you have to have it all mapped out, but a lot of people go to law school thinking it's like undergrad and that they'll have all 3 years to figure it out, when that's not quite the case. BL hires right before 2L year, fed clerkship hiring is anywhere from your 1L to your 2L summer, etc. If you haven't already, I would highly recommend taking some time off and start to think about what you want to be doing.

2) I would retake - a couple more points would make you a safe bet for t14, which would give you more opportunities and flexibility

3) If you don't want to do either of the above, then I guess go to UCLA

thanks for your reply. yeah i understand your point that i really should have a clearer path set out for me. i guess my plans are that i'm trying to get the best grades i can (although i understand the forced curve means i should assume median), but assumung my grades are good enough for OCI, i'll and do my 2L summer at a firm, and hopefully get an offer at that firm. but i feel like i'm also flexible enough that if those plans don't work out, and i think i'd be cool with being an ADA as well. although again i'm not really sure until i really go in and experience everything right?

i'm seriously considering taking the lsat again, although my score was right around where i was practicing at. another thing is that i would be commuting to either school... which is why these the two schools are the most attractive for me right now, and mitigates a lot of the costs. so, that leads me to your last point.

do you think the difference is enough to justify the cost difference?

Given your options and without very specific career goals in mind I would highly recommend retaking. Take a class if you need to (7sage is pretty cheap). To answer your last question, given that your parents are already okay with covering the difference, yes I would say that UCLA is worth the cost difference.

[deadpanic]

but i feel like i'm also flexible enough that if those plans don't work out, and i think i'd be cool with being an ADA as well. although again i'm not really sure until i really go in and experience everything right?

Well, the thing is it is not really an option to have an ADA job as a backup. They generally hire from former interns that have committed their time to public service each summer. Not to mention, these jobs are pretty competitive for a small amount of openings (and the hiring is completely dependent on need, so you can never be sure when they'll be hiring). Although I don't have any first-hand knowledge, I have heard California DA gigs are especially competitive because they pay quite well compared to other DA jobs in other states.

If you want to re-take that is fine and probably a good idea, but I guess I'll slightly go against the previous poster's advice. To me it seems you have stressed a couple times that you want BigLaw or a clerkship, which is a general enough idea (plus with no debt). And you will know if you are eligible after your first year grades for either. Of course your chances from UCLA are not exceptionally great and if you really really want those or bust, then re-take for T14. But I think you are just misguided on having ADA as a backup plan.